Just popping in to confirm what you've written about divorce, as someone with modest expertise in the New Testament documents. You capture the issues very accurately, right down to the exception clause in Paul (where an unbelieving spouse deserts a believer, the believer is not "bound").
On the other hand, I don't think the Bible is equivocal on the subject of divorce. I've read some arguments that homosexuality is only a sin where it is associated with idolatrous worship, but I don't think it's a very strong argument.
The best argument I can make for the Church to accept homosexuals is the following. Jesus was inclusive of various social outcasts (tax collectors, prostitutes, women in general, unspecified "sinners") who were spurned by the religious authorities. Would he have extended that inclusiveness to homosexuals? We can only speculate, because the Gospels are silent on the subject.
Personally, I think Jesus would fellowship with homosexuals if he were alive today. But I can't expect anyone to take my word for it!
The argument you make is well taken. Evangelicals manage to overlook the plain biblical teaching on divorce, precisely because it is a common experience within their circles. Homosexuality supposedly happens only outside the bounds of the Church, and homosexuals are an easy whipping boy.
I would add one nuance to your interpretation of the texts on divorce. There is a consensus among scholars that the teaching evolved as the decades passed. The earliest Gospel, Mark (10:11-12), makes no exceptions whatsoever. Matthew (5:32 and again at 19:9) introduces an exception clause for adultery. Scholars assume that the more radical version of the saying, in Mark, is accurate.
Paul introduces the other exception clause we've already discussed. So both Paul and Matthew are introducing exceptions where Jesus allowed none. Ideals are one thing; pastoral realities are another.
no subject
Just popping in to confirm what you've written about divorce, as someone with modest expertise in the New Testament documents. You capture the issues very accurately, right down to the exception clause in Paul (where an unbelieving spouse deserts a believer, the believer is not "bound").
On the other hand, I don't think the Bible is equivocal on the subject of divorce. I've read some arguments that homosexuality is only a sin where it is associated with idolatrous worship, but I don't think it's a very strong argument.
The best argument I can make for the Church to accept homosexuals is the following. Jesus was inclusive of various social outcasts (tax collectors, prostitutes, women in general, unspecified "sinners") who were spurned by the religious authorities. Would he have extended that inclusiveness to homosexuals? We can only speculate, because the Gospels are silent on the subject.
Personally, I think Jesus would fellowship with homosexuals if he were alive today. But I can't expect anyone to take my word for it!
The argument you make is well taken. Evangelicals manage to overlook the plain biblical teaching on divorce, precisely because it is a common experience within their circles. Homosexuality supposedly happens only outside the bounds of the Church, and homosexuals are an easy whipping boy.
I would add one nuance to your interpretation of the texts on divorce. There is a consensus among scholars that the teaching evolved as the decades passed. The earliest Gospel, Mark (10:11-12), makes no exceptions whatsoever. Matthew (5:32 and again at 19:9) introduces an exception clause for adultery. Scholars assume that the more radical version of the saying, in Mark, is accurate.
Paul introduces the other exception clause we've already discussed. So both Paul and Matthew are introducing exceptions where Jesus allowed none. Ideals are one thing; pastoral realities are another.